Separated fathers and the ‘fathers’
rights’ movement
Dr Michael Flood
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society
La Trobe University
[email protected]
The fathers’ rights movement
•
Worldview: Fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’…
•
FR groups overlap with ‘men’s rights’ groups. And have
links to conservative Christian groups.
•
An organised backlash to feminism
•
Comprised of angry and hurting men (and women),
who’ve come through;
–
Separation and divorce
–
Loss of contact with children
Fathers’ rights rally, Canberra, 20 June 2005
Contexts for fathering
•
Shifts in gender relations
•
Shifts in family structure and
relations
•
A growing diversity of
relationships between adult
men and children
Contexts for fathering cont’d
•
Shifts in images of fathering: the
‘New Father’
•
Both shifts and stabilities in
fathering practice
•
The best and worst of times?
What brings men to the FR
movement
(1) Separation and divorce
•
Acute distress, emotional difficulties, etc.
•
Anger and blame at ex-partners (which can worsen
over time)
•
Perception that ‘the system’ is biased against fathers
What brings men… cont’d
(2) Dissatisfaction with loss of contact with children
•
75% of non-resident fathers (and 40% of resident
mothers) would like to have more contact.
•
Difficulties in non-resident parenting
(3) Reassertion of traditional gender roles and
backlash to feminism
Supporting separated fathers
Three reasons to provide support to separated fathers;

To assist them in healing from the negative effects of
separation and divorce and to support them in dealing
with other dimensions of non-resident parenting;

To support them in maintaining or building ongoing
relationships with their children;

To help them to manage an ongoing and positive
relationship with their ex-partners.
Fathers’ contact with children
•
Why contact is desirable…
•
Contact in itself is not a good predictor of
children’s wellbeing.
•
Instead, fathers’ authoritative parenting
•
No particular post-separation parenting
arrangement is more advantageous for children.
–
(Versus arguments for a presumption of joint
residence.)
FR groups constrain the healing
process of separated fathers
•
Some men do find support and experience benefits.
•
But FR groups also fix men in victimhood, blame,
anger, and hostility. And intensify misogynist
discourses.
•
While FR groups defend traditional masculinity, this in
fact leaves men ill-equipped to deal with separation and
divorce.
•
FR groups encourage malicious, destructive, and
unproductive legal efforts.
FR groups fail to promote fathers’
actual involvement in parenting
•
Focus on formal rights, equality, or status rather
than the actual shared care of children
–
Rhetorical shift in early 21C, from ‘rights’ and
discrimination to ‘equal parenting’ and parental
‘fairness’
–
Neglect of actual shared parenting
FR groups fail to promote… cont’d
•
Focus on re-establishing paternal authority
rather than shared parenting
–
FR movement and feminism share the belief that
men should be involved in parenting. But FR focuses
on fathers’ control, not fathers’ care.
–
Wants men to father, not to parent.
FR groups fail to promote… cont’d
•
Ignore the real obstacles to fathers’ lack of
involvement with children, (a) before separation
and divorce
–
Fathers’ lack of involvement. Which is shaped by
workplace practices and relations, government
policies, gender inequalities, etc.
–
FR groups have opposed the very measures that
would encourage greater sharing of parenting, e.g.
promotion of women’s economic opportunities.
FR groups fail to promote… cont’d
•
Ignore the real obstacles to fathers’ lack of involvement
with children, (b) After separation and divorce
•
FR groups
–
Focus on mythical legal obstacles to shared parenting.
–
Ignore what is required to set up shared parenting.
–
Try to impose shared residence on parents who lack the
capacity to sustain it and children for whom it would be
harmful.
–
Focus on ‘maternal gatekeeping’ and sanctions for resident
mothers’ breaches of contact orders.
FR groups harm children
•
Try to force parental (paternal) contact on children
regardless of children’s desires and regardless of
potential negative impacts.
•
Reduce financial and material support for resident
parents and children.
•
Fuel interparental conflict.
•
Privilege fathers’ contact over children’s safety.
•
Try to wind back the protections available to victims of
domestic violence and/or child abuse, and to lessen the
legal sanctions applied to perpetrators.
FR groups harm fathers’
relationships with their ex-partners
•
FR efforts fuel resident mothers’ hostility to their ex-partners and
their reluctance to facilitate contact.
•
FR discourse depicts women in general, and single mothers in
particular, as parasitical, lying, and vindictive
–
•
‘sofa loafers’, ‘gold-diggers’, ‘access bitches’, ‘tramps’,
‘whores’, etc.
Fuelling interparental hostility and conflict;
–
Will lessen fathers’ contact with children and increase fathers’
use of the courts to enforce contact.
–
Will lessen children’s wellbeing.
Developing positive responses to
separated fathers
•
Support, education, and other
programs among fathers do have
positive effects.
•
The potential positive role of support
groups and other interventions –
depends on both process and content.
–
•
E.g., teach motivation and skills in
managing conflict
Developing service responses to
separated fathers…
Conclusion
•
FR groups are harmful for separated
fathers themselves and for their relations
with children.
•
We must work with separated fathers;
–
For their sake;
–
For the sake of their children and their expartners;
–
To lessen recruitment into the FR movement.
–
As part of developing positive service
responses.